Letters to the Editor
-
Reality.
"If the Obama campaign had been run on the issues, on differences of position instead of this fantasy of "a new kind of politics", "change you can believe in" "I'm not the OLD (ageism) politics", we would likely not be having this horrible rift between democrats. It is the pure, unadulterated bullshit (sorry) that has driven most Clinton supporters crazy."
Sorry, but if you think politics as practiced in the Clinton era is the be-all, end-all of statesmanship, you have a very narrow conception of the game. Of course partisanship has always existed, and always will. That doesn't mean it hadn't grown virulent in the 90's, mainly because of the GOP, yes, but also because of the way the Clintons played the game -- i.e. treating everyone who didn't agree with them 100%, including fellow Dems, as sworn enemies. We can do better, and we have, throughout our history. Even during Watergate, it wasn't as bad as it is now.
"Did he achieve that profound change in Chicago? I don't mean passing a bill. I mean being a "different" politician. Cleaning things up. Changing how things are done. He promises to do that for Washington, America, the world. Did he do it in Chicago? He was in office for 8 years."
Why, yes, yes he did. I recommend you read up on Obama getting the first comprehensive campaign finance law in Illinois in 25 years passed, how he convinced the cops and the state authorities to videotape interrogations, and how he managed to bring together everyone to pass a controversial death penalty reform bill unanimously. While you're at it, look for Republicans in the Illinois State Senate who speak ill of him -- there are very few.
"say you are sure he's heard Wright using harsh language. Obama denies it. You say he's tried to keep distance between Wright and his campaign. Wright was an advisor on his campaign until about 2 days ago when this story broke. Sorry, it's just too hard to argue with made up facts."
No, Obama denied having heard the stuff FOX brought up ("God Damn America," 9/11, AIDS). He didn't deny having heard tough language from Wright before. Hence the whole "crazy uncle" routine in the first place.
Also, scroll down. People have been posting on how the Obama campaign has encouraged Wright not to speak at various events, and have been using that as evidence he's lying. That's what I mean when he's tried to keep distance. Get your facts straight. Reality counts.
-
Oh, grow up already.
Sorry, but if you think politics as practiced in the Clinton era is the be-all, end-all of statesmanship, you have a very narrow conception of the game. Of course partisanship has always existed, and always will. That doesn't mean it hadn't grown virulent in the 90's, mainly because of the GOP, yes, but also because of the way the Clintons played the game -- i.e. treating everyone who didn't agree with them 100%, including fellow Dems, as sworn enemies. We can do better, and we have, throughout our history. Even during Watergate, it wasn't as bad as it is now.
Grow up. The only sin the Clinton's were guilty of was defeating a Republican twice.
Rather than "create enemies", they endured what amounted to relentless attacks, charlatan investigations and kangaroo court impeachments - of the sort that ANY Dem who defeats them will endure. (if the late Spitzer thing doesn't prove it I don't know WHAT does).
The fact that Mrs. Clinton has survived it all and come out stronger for it is a good thing, not a bad thing. Karl Rove knew he couldn't hurt her favorability ratings any more. Definitely beats an untested candidate that so far can only yell racism and/or amnesia at any peeling under the sappy, empty-blanket of Hope videols.
-
@RealityCounts: Begin at the beginning
If the Obama campaign had been run on the issues, on differences of position instead of this fantasy of "a new kind of politics", "change you can believe in" "I'm not the OLD (ageism) politics", we would likely not be having this horrible rift between democrats.
Well, we have a difference of opinion on this. And I think there is a lot of attacking the messenger rather than the message.
It's obvious to me that one of the biggest problems (aka issue) with our politics today is the process. And all of those who keep viewing politics soley through the lens of racism and sexism they developed in the 50, 60, & 70 need to re-evalulate. Instead, a lot of seem to be adding ageism to the list of slights that they endure.
And the current type of hyper-partisian trench warfare in the house and senate arose out of the '90s. I think looking for a modicum of civility before demonizing your opponent is actually a return to an older form of politics, at least in the Senate.
Just as many Obama supporters think Hillary is devisive. So to blame one side is probably futile. No consensus on the facts and how they matter is likely to emerge anytime soon.
-
Shawn the Pawn Dissects America
So, oh wise one, some American votes count and others do not? You can go through the most incoherent contortions trying to reduce what is Obama's lead in either delegates (about 130 or a little better) or in popular votes (over 700K). This bullshit of red/blue/purple votes, or the ones that "won't count" in November shows just how pathetic and desperate you sycophants are. Of course no Democrat will carry Utah. Duh. No Republican will carry NY or California. The rest of your blather is just that: tortured logic (do you waterboard it before you plop another steamer on line?) to find some way of explaining away what has undeniably occurred. Your comparison of Obama and Dukakis is as appropriate as a comparison of Hillary and Shirley Chisholm. Were you even born when Dukakis, the pop up toy in a tank, got run over by Ray-gun? Dukakis could barely speak a coherent sentence in public. In that sense, he was more like Bushie than Barack. You have a pedestrian candidate in a fading second place. Explain away, but you'd be better off shoveling the bullshit on your roses. love, heywood